"Y2K and Risk" was my first post on this forum (The "Raiding" essay was cross-posted). I was frequently asked why I kept coming to TB 2000. If you read the actual thread of "Y2K and Risk," you'll see I received a fair amount of grief... particularly from Russ Lipton, aka Big Dog. It was probably sheer stubborness to keep wading in these waters... but I felt my position would be vindicated. Judge for yourself.

http://hv.greenspun.com/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg.tcl?msg_id=000eh6

The issue of Y2K boils down to a simple issuerisk. What is the extent and nature of the risk posed by Y2K-related computer problems?

*****

Capitalism is not perfect, but it will solve most Y2K problems.

*****

A recession or even a depression due to cumulative Y2K computer problems is possible though highly unlikely. Of our tremendous productive capacity, only a fraction is dedicated to "can't-live-without-it" activities.

*****

Given an understanding of market economics, it is difficult to imagine how a shortage of power will have terminal results (no pun intended). If allowed, energy prices will increase to a new equilibrium. If some power producing entities fail, others will reap the profits of greater market share. This same supply/demand equilibrium will occur in every sector of the economy, unless the government intervenes.

*****

Y2K will not destroy physical infrastructure nor will it destroy the sum of human knowledge. We do not lose our knowledge base with Y2K, just (possibly) some of our technological infrastructure.

*****

Bad things can happen. There is a reasonably high probability the earth will be struck by an interstellar object. Of course, it may take another billion years. I am not losing sleep over this, even though it is a "non-zero probability."

*****

Much of the Y2K writing on the Internet has been dedicated to the proposition that one failure will domino into a systemic failure.... Some problems will be fixed ahead of time, some will be fixed on failure and some will just not make much difference. No one can produce an accurate simulation to determine the number of computer failures that result in people looting the local thrifty mart.

*****

A failure to resolve Y2K problems may result in a recession, but it will not turn the clock back 100 years.

*****

Y2K doomsayers have long ago concluded that Y2K is "unfixable." Any reports of mitigation, therefore, must be lies, half-truths or exaggeration.

*****

From the mostly Internet-based Y2K musings of a few has arisen a "faith." Y2K has become a belief system rather than a technical or public policy issue. Many of the individuals who post on this and other boards "believe" Y2K will result in "the end of the world as we know it." They cannot prove this... nor can anyone. They hold Y2K as an article of faith.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 01, 2000

Answers

When they say "peace and safety", then the end will come. (St. Paul)

-- james hyde (hydesci@gte.net), January 01, 2000.

Ken, get over it okay?

-- ~~~~ (~~~@~~~.xcom), January 01, 2000.

Ken you're a doomer! just kidding. Seems like you hit it pretty close to the nail brother.

-- Howard (roark@not.now), January 01, 2000.

Ken:

I think many people have left. It is just us. In the past I have disagreed with your Y2K induced recession theory. You may turn out to be right. If you are, I will salute you at that time. In my experience you place too much faith in market economics. I have a lot of friends who are economists. I work with them on a daily basis. I even invite them to parties at my house. My impression is that this is not a rational field. Just a bunch of guesses. The old saying is that for every economic question you can find three economists with opposite answers. Therefore, someone is always correct.

Best wishes and a happy New Yea

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), January 01, 2000.

Ken:

Of course the even older joke is: If you laid all of the economists in the world end to end, they wouldn't form a line long enough to reach a conclusion.

Once again,

Best wishes,,,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), January 01, 2000.

LEAVE!!! GET IT? And quit playing with the HTML -- Sysop

-- (LadyNOTlogicAL@aol.com), January 01, 2000.

LL:

Your statement has nothing to do with the discussion. What you say may be true for a small minority of people. We are discussing the possibility of a Y2K induced recession. Decker thinks that there may be one. I don't see that happening. Of course, I could be wrong. I often have been. You have to quit supporting doomer sentiment or your reputation will go down the toilet.

Best wishes,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), January 01, 2000.

Ken:

As a final thought. I am waiting to be convinced. With P/E ratios at their present status [some are negative], please explain your position. I sure am confused.

Best wishes,,,

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), January 01, 2000.

Sysop:

Of course you know that when LL makes this many posts and your remove them, the rest of the thread makes little sense.

Best wishes,,,

Z

-- Z1X4Y7 (Z1X4Y7@aol.com), January 01, 2000.

I am still calling for a recession in 2Q/3Q. The overvalued market is one reason. I'm an optimist, but not a fool.

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@worldnet.att.net), January 01, 2000.